# AMLR Art. 72 — Disclosure to FIU > GwG Art. 11a's extension to advisers is a 2025-revision change (BBl 2025 2899), in force 1 October 2026. - **Part of:** [[AMLR]] - **FATF keying:** [[FATF R.21 - Tipping-off and confidentiality|FATF R.21]] - **Swiss provisions:** [[GwG Art. 11a - MROS request for additional information|GwG Art. 11a]] - **Detailed citation:** GwG Art. 11, 11a (rev.) ## What it requires Good-faith disclosure of information to the FIU by an obliged entity, or by its director or employee, made under Art. 69 or 70, does not breach any contractual, legislative, regulatory or administrative restriction on disclosure, and does not expose the discloser or the entity to any liability - even where they were not precisely aware of the underlying criminal activity, or none in fact occurred. ## Swiss position GwG Art. 11a governs MROS's power to seek further information once analysing a report filed under GwG Art. 9 or StGB Art. 305ter Abs. 2: the reporting intermediary must hand over what it holds (Abs. 1), and other intermediaries identified as involved must do likewise (Abs. 2), including where the lead came from a foreign FIU (Abs. 2bis). Abs. 4 subjects those responding intermediaries to the Art. 10a Abs. 1 tipping-off ban. Abs. 5 extends the Art. 11 Straf- und Haftungsausschluss (the criminal- and civil-liability exclusion for good-faith Art. 9 reports and Art. 10 freezes) 'sinngemäss' (by analogy) to these Art. 11a disclosures. From 1.10.2026 Art. 11a is revised to reach advisers as well as financial intermediaries. ## Key divergences The Swiss shield sits one step removed from AMLR Art. 72: GwG Art. 11 protects the original Art. 9 report and Art. 10 freeze directly, and Art. 11a Abs. 5 applies that protection to responses to MROS's own follow-up requests only by analogy. AMLR Art. 72 instead protects the disclosure made under Art. 69 or 70 in a single provision. The Swiss no-tipping-off rule (GwG Art. 10a) is a separate, freestanding prohibition on telling the client or third parties that a report was made, with defined exceptions - an intermediary's own SRO, FINMA and the ESBK are not 'third parties'; inter-intermediary notices are allowed for shared client-asset-management services or within the same corporate group; and safeguarding one's own interests in civil, criminal or administrative proceedings is carved out. AMLR Art. 72 does not itself define a tipping-off offence or its exceptions; it addresses only liability for the disclosure to the FIU. ## Effective dates GwG Art. 11a's extension to advisers is a 2025-revision change (BBl 2025 2899), in force 1 October 2026. ## Further connections *These links come from an article-by-article comparison of the primary texts. They add to the provisions listed at the top of this note and make no equivalence claim.* - [[GwG Art. 11 - Exclusion from criminal and civil liability|GwG Art. 11]] — Both protect good-faith reports to the FIU from liability for breach of disclosure restrictions or contract; GwG Art. 11 also covers asset freezes and reports by audit firms, supervisory organisations and SROs, while AMLR Art. 72 names the obliged entity, its employees and directors. *(direct)* ## Authoritative text > [!quote]- Regulation (EU) 2024/1624 (AMLR), Article 72 — English text (EUR-Lex, CELEX 32024R1624) > **Article 72** > *Disclosure to FIU* > Disclosure of information to the FIU in good faith by an obliged entity or by an employee or director of such an obliged entity in accordance with Articles 69 and 70 shall not constitute a breach of any restriction on disclosure of information imposed by contract or by any legislative, regulatory or administrative provision, and shall not involve the obliged entity or its directors or employees in liability of any kind even in circumstances where they were not precisely aware of the underlying criminal activity and regardless of whether illegal activity actually occurred. ## Sources - AMLR Art. 72 — CELEX 32024R1624 - GwG SR 955.0, Art. 9, Art. 11, Art. 11a, Art. 10a